One thing of interest is that costs have increased as we build more, which makes no fucking sense unless the cost is being raised by external factors. Prices should always go down as we get more practice, knowledge, and technology. You really can’t compare the prices as they currently exist to make an argument for what we should do. What we should do is remove unnecessary regulations, for nuclear, solar, wind, etc., and stop subsidizing dirty sources, the build more of anything that makes sense at whatever location.
Neither are inferior. They’re very different technologies with different uses. They’re all sources of clean energy that all have a purpose. A nuclear baseline (or whatever base load you have, including coal or natural gas) makes infrastructure costs cheaper for solar. Without the solar is more expensive than current estimates would appear. We need both.
I’m not even necessarily comparing costs, I’m demonstrating that that solar is surpassing nuclear in the real world and it’s only going to accelerate. Dirty energy doesn’t benefit from being lapped by solar, there is no advantage for dirty energy if we just invest in solar+grid-scale battery storage instead of nuclear energy. You can’t just say “every power source is the same, nothing is different” and expect that to be a coherent idea. Some clean energy sources are better than others.
Nuclear has its place, but it’s small and it always will be.
Again, if your argument is cost, you’re just doing the dirty work of dirty energy. It is not inherently expensive. It’s been made to be expensive. Even in the US, which is one of the worst in the world for nuclear power cost it’s reasonably competitve
One thing of interest is that costs have increased as we build more, which makes no fucking sense unless the cost is being raised by external factors. Prices should always go down as we get more practice, knowledge, and technology. You really can’t compare the prices as they currently exist to make an argument for what we should do. What we should do is remove unnecessary regulations, for nuclear, solar, wind, etc., and stop subsidizing dirty sources, the build more of anything that makes sense at whatever location.
Neither are inferior. They’re very different technologies with different uses. They’re all sources of clean energy that all have a purpose. A nuclear baseline (or whatever base load you have, including coal or natural gas) makes infrastructure costs cheaper for solar. Without the solar is more expensive than current estimates would appear. We need both.
I’m not even necessarily comparing costs, I’m demonstrating that that solar is surpassing nuclear in the real world and it’s only going to accelerate. Dirty energy doesn’t benefit from being lapped by solar, there is no advantage for dirty energy if we just invest in solar+grid-scale battery storage instead of nuclear energy. You can’t just say “every power source is the same, nothing is different” and expect that to be a coherent idea. Some clean energy sources are better than others.
Nuclear has its place, but it’s small and it always will be.